Attachment 2



avepavir 99-23-~05P0}:29 Revp

September 15, 2005 SEC Petition Tracking No. 00043

SEC Petition

Office of Compensation Anatysis & Support

NIOSH

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47

Cincinnati, OH 45226

To Whom It May Concern:

Per my telephone interview conversation with Pat, a NIOSH telephone interview person, on
September 14, 2005 at 1:00 p.m., please make the following corrections to the SEC Petition,
tracking number 00043m;

The section E.5 on the application, should have not have been checked.
The section F.1 and F.2 on the application should have been checked.

The attachment included is for F.1 and F.2 as follows:
F.1 and F.2:

Explanation for Question F.1 and F.2— SEC Petition for Chapman Valve

Error in this section should read:

Bioassay data results for the AEC’s contract period from January 1948-April 1949
(uranium in urine) are available for only three dates: _

THE PETITION IS CORRECT WITH THE EXCEPTION TO THE ABOVE
CORRECTIONS

Iwas told by Pat (telephone interviewer person) that these errors would be corrected.

I was to submit an affidavit to confirm the telephone interview.

hud d Reade
Keir: A Reale.

My Commission expires
Juve QO, 200

Very truly yours,



at

surface contamination (Table 1, p. 30). Table S {p. 38) shows that 17 of 23 dust samples
from overhead beams contained By at concentrations 2100% of the DOE guideline of
1000 dpm/100 cm? for removable surface contamination (Table 1, p, 30).

‘Teo dust samples, Mi0 and M31. were selected for oranjum fsotopic analysis’ co
determine if the uranium content was normal or enriched. Nommally, uranim contains
0.711% SU Uranium i 235 isotope conc

Radiation measurements prior to and after collection of dust and debris samples 2
Table 6 (p. 39). Frequently, alpha radiation levels, and in some cases beta-gamma
radiation levels, remained elevated after sample collection, showing that scraping away the
dust or debris did not completely climinate all contamination,

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATION

Radiological contamination in Building 23 was concentrated in the westeram nost 15 grid
areas, primarily in grid blocks Al through AIS, This central area of the building was
ely free of debris and clutter, allowing good access to the area. Only a few spots of
contamination were found on the floors and walls, but overhead beams and horizontal
surfaces were consistently elevated § a eramost B
blocks, but clutier and debris in this area “prevented a tharongh survey. Anomalies
nuified ia this area (Fig. 7, p. 18) included a radiator on

dose rales of OF to 88 mt wind

Cie the w

Hes in the nurthwe:
corner of grid block B2; and a circular area on the floor near the southeast corner of grid
block BS with beta-gamma dose rates of 0.3 mzad;h. No anomalies were identified in grid
blocks AA! through AAO. Highlights of the survey of the central part of the building are
presenied in Figs. 9 9 (pp LP through 27).

Grid Block A1 and wns Exterior

On the west of the
surface, underneath a fi
above the ground. At this s location ‘Gs
0.7 meat/h and m umn alpha a activity 1 rea
demonstrated that the

wtely Sf
20, p. 28), beta-gar

Other details of the survey of gcid block Al are diagramed in Fig. 9 (p. 17). ¢
represent the floor area; extended dashed lines represent the wall
ramp immediately inside the main entcance, an elevated area ((
gamma exposure rates of 32 uR/h and beta-gamma dose rates. up to. 13 ‘mrad
te M31. colle was light 1

wall and 0 oad ledge j just north of the main entrance (Fig. 22, p. °). The w west well south of



he surntised) are representative of most workers,
‘on task at a foundry that had numerous

is no data and no reasen to

amounts of radi

chip burners release prolif
dhey have no documentation.

HORAL staffer Cind
ingfield, Massach

tachment 2}.

Data was provided to }
ference material

‘ NUMEC in Pennsyl
profile.

Further, there i

day, bul there iy no work his
rehips ig nite on thi

tory

or merely represent
other operation

sume that bioassay
wi Were representative of the work environment (or the upper bound
tiranium division, For example. was the uranium chip burner op

cach di

lat

IRNL tha:

ha window. NIOSH did note
ie profile When a: Ke
account for the chip burner, Cindy B Bloom, an MIWLORALU healt
data. We used what we had.” (Source:

no basis to conclude that lathes were operating on th
taken. ORAL speculates that there must have been a reasun samples w

anh 2} poration
noir

A helpfal i

samples were only laken

erating on these d
oactive purdeulate, NIOSI

inule day of emy

in the
ranium
speculate, but

sposures

I staff can

y Bloom was provided with a map ut the Febrnary [4. 2605

ed the location of
sider this
rd why MOSH did ne

cist suid “We iad

ORAL Suan of February 14, 2005

erator at

the site

ndicta ts the perce



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

comras cm

workers to introduce themselves and tell where they had worked. He then turned the meeting.
over to Bill Murray for the presentation.

Mr. Murray expressed his appreciation io the participants for giving the team the opportumly to
feam more ahout the work that was done al Chapman Valve, and taki
of their work e9 He stressed the importance of bringing forth additional informat
supplement the Site Profile and gi ors a voice in the matter,

jon to

Mr. Murray began the presentation by explaining the Energy Employees Occupational finess
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). He told the group that Chapman Valve Manufacturin
is considered an Atomic Weapons Employer {A site due to the uranium work the company
performed under comvact from the Manhattan Enginecring District and Atomic Energy
Commission, Ile explained that under Subtitle B of the Act. a claim can be filed by a worker
who has contracted radiation-induced cancer, beryllium disease or silicosis (or the work
survivors). The cancer claims go to the tional Institute for Oceupational s ae and Nes

ntractors and government regarding operating procedures and vadhation expos
red at the s site He stated ( that NOs Ofiee 2e of Compensation Analysis and Suppo
ruction. Que to the high volume of

“OR

erated Uni (O8 RAL) to > Be

r. Murray steted that dhe purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Site Profile for Chapman
Valve Manufacturing Plant. He described the Site Profile as an important document used by

Health Physicists in the reconstruction of radiauion doses received by workers at a specific sie.
The Site Profile undergoes an extensive review process. Since the Site Profile is a
ration hecomes aval > Outre
ent ar the mvelt ion trom the former v i

monitoring prograz

‘The primary source of exposure at the C

ny was under contract to machine uranium for the Atontic
re period was x 949 and 1993 and does not inciude

one incident was recorded -- a uranium fire in June

The primary g wouid be the

iod froni

residual contamination expos:
clean-up operations in 1994 und 1995. O:
1948, but there were possibly other incidents
machining operations in 1948 and how

1949 to 1993,

34, 1949,

Bloom pointed ov

Comment

We

o



SIGNATURE WITNESSING

Gov. Exec. Ord #455 (03-13), $5(1)

County of

~ On this the “1S ya Sepbabee > 26S before me,

Commonwealth of sets \.

rish” & Reale . the undersianed Notarv Public,

ersor appeared .
personally Name(s) of Signer(s) *

proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identity, which was/were

MassochuscHs Drees license.

Description of Evidence of identity

to be the person(s) whose name(s)
was/were signed on the preceding or
attached document in my presence.

Place Notary Seal andlor Any Stamp Above
OPTIONAL

Although the information in this section is not required by law, it may prove valuable to
persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment
of this form to another document.

Right Thumbprint
of Signer

fap of thumb here|
Description of Attached Document

Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:

©2004 National Notary Association * 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 * Chatsworth, CA 91813-2402 « www.NationalNotary.crg,
ttem No. 5953 Reorder. Cail Toll-Free 1-800 US NOTARY {1300-576 662)



ition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Convo! and Prevention |
ste for Oocupauonal Safety and Health)

P —

j Special Exposure Cohort Pe

j under Ihe Energy Employees Occupationst

lines Compensation Act National t

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires 05/5 1/2007
Appendix —~ Petitioner 2)

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B
: Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or sepresenting a Survivor. - -

8.1 Name of Survivor:

RE arg , “FirstName ‘Middle Initial Last Name
B2 Social Security Number of Survivor: _ __ a ae
B.3 Address of Survivor:
| Steet a ~
| F
I City” State
8.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: _ _ —

B.S Email Address of Survivor: «

en
B.6 Relationship to Emptoyee: Q Spouse £& SonDaughtes =O Parent
2 Grandparent Q Grandchild

Go to Part C.

Employee Information —-.Compiete Section C.
fom] Name of Employee:

Middle Initial

s/s. FirstName ~ ~~ Middle Initial
©.3 Social Security Number of Emplayee: eee ceva mes coevve vim wes
C.4 Address of Employee iif tiving):

C.6 Telephone Number of Employee: , _ ——

Email Address of Employee: . ene

Employment information Related to Petition:
Employee Number (if known): co eee oe

Dates of Employment: Stat oo End

mployer Name:

m

ad Werk Site Location:

C.7e Supervisor's Name ___ —_

' Sign Part G of the original petition.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Re

ORNL/RASA-9271

ay)
Y

OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY.

Results of the Radiclogical Survey
at the Former
Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company,
Indian Orchard, Massachusetts
(CIOOOL)

MARTIN MARIETTA

xn



fF PH

co)
i

mie

? &

i
FLOOR PLAN.
«Figure 2
Chapman Valva

| Building 28 = Plan View

PPP Pe &

\NT6FO68. DOF

ee ee ee



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

Comment:
‘Two individuals remembered the incinerator, but one has since passed away. They
mentioned uranium work during World War Il. Radioactive ashes and poor ventilation
(incinerator was vented out the windows) would increase the probability of ngher levels of
radiation. How do you determine dose?

Cindy Bloom:

We had limited bioassay data, We used what we had.

Comment:
The report should mention the chip incinerator, and there is uo data verified int!
report.

he ORNIL

Question:
Do you have any information about Parker Street? A subcontractor did machining oper:
there.

Cindy Bloom:
A lot of AWE work was non-radioactive. They needed valves. too.

Comment:
Department 40 and Building 23, which was the building
product behind the old steel foundry. 1 den‘ Knew iit
found to be contaminated. ==

ith the furnaces, bath dumped
i but in 1987-88 a owas

Question:
Ifthe Site Profile is important, why are our claims being denied?
Mark Lewis:
There could be several reasons-for this: the work penod could:be outside the co
only certain cancers are covered because radiation only concentrates m specific organs, or
ble doesn’t produce @ high enough dose. [hai’s why we need
ises the probability of causation over 30%, the claim

ered period:

ybe the information avai
your ing revised document :
will be opened again.

Cindy Bloom:
We attempt to expedite claims, but it tak
thal was available to us at the time. Cert:

a ift

time to vet information, We used the i

} Cancers are more Comper:

Comment:

Every claim was denied.
Cindy Bloom:
Wer

rn
file

don the other
We appreciate your input.

as ir



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

Date:
i February 14, 2005

i Meeting with:
: Chapman Valve Manufneturing, held at Westem Massachusetts COSH office, Springfield,
! Massachusetis

Attendees:

Approximately 65 people in attendance, including the last vice president of United
Radio Machine Workers (UE), one of the Chapman Valve unions.

Om “Alfred LeMoine a a
; Lucy Rivest __. Allie Fisher _ 4
fl Ernest Heirseh _ . Diane Kubetn . {
Daniel J Zaibo 7 : Donnabelle Shaw Io! Hl
Ellen Mislak ae _
"Same Samuel Hie

Marianne Reale

[Albert Bolden. jr.
; Beuy LeBoeuf
| Bob Duarte

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives:

Mark Roltes ~ National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office ©
Compensation Analysis and ¢ Suppor (OCAS}

iam Murray - Oak Ri
Mark Lewis - Ads anced Teel

ersides (ORAL}
logies Lahorator
Dawn Catalano - ATL International, Ine.
Cindy Bloom —MJW Corporation

: Proceedings
M k Lewis hegan the meetin:
ihe ume to attend. He stated that the pur Fe
and gather their collectve memones of the complove ment : at {Cha apman ring to

aed the workers’ perspective to the Site Profile. He intr roduc ced the ORAU team and peinted out
to the participanis that the meeting

. He asked the former



ORNL/RASA-92/1

HEALTH AND SAFETY RESEARCH DIVISION

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Non-Delense
(Activiry No. EX 20 20 01 G ADS3L7O000)

Results of the Radiological Survey at the Former
Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company,
Indian Orchard, Massachusetts
(C1O001)

R. D. Foley and M. S$. Uzi

Date Issued - July 1992



Ped as >
1 . .
|



__ itl

| Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services!
| under the Energy Employees Occupational Canters for Disease Control and Prevention |
|!lness Compensation Act National institute for Ocoupaticnar Safely and Healin |
. OMS Number. 0920-0639 Expires. 05/31/2007 |
i Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form 8 Page 6 of 7/
F.3  O) iWe have attached 4 report from a health physicist or other indwidual with expertise ia
jialion dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or i
expesures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconsiructions for .
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.
(Atiach report to the back of the petition form.)
F.4  Q \We have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the

Exeoutwe Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. or the Defense Nuclear Facitities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, inat identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavadable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radia doses of
empioyees covered by the petition.

{Attach report to the back of the petition ford.)

Send U

Notice:

hus form ia

Go to Part G, {

Sighewie

Date

Any person who knowingly makes any faise staternent, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who

Knowing pts Compensation to which tI al person
is f

ony

ng ius.

=C Patten
Office of Compen
NIOSH

4876 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnatl. OH 45226

ion Analysis 2

if there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.

The Appendix forms are @ located at the end of this document

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

pling used then is still the standard sampling process in use today. Only ©
re used back then ~ people rotated with the limited number of badges available,
and went into the area for small amounts of time.

Comment:
Most people worked overtime. The numbers don’t sound right. The company didn’t track
employees closely.

Comment:
The work sire was d the workers were not well protected. Any
information from management should be taken with a grain of salt. They ran a lousy si
The quality of reporting and the energy they put into safety programs was low.

Cindy Bloom:
We have handwritten records of job descriptions and time spent in certain areas.. Should |
not believe then?

Comment:
Regarding potential work on th

Comment:

There was no saf

program

Cindy Bloom:

Standa

and limitations in the 1940s were different, nol as we see them today
Documentation is always someone's

persnective ~ the records seem credible

Comment:
Did you take into the consideration that there was na mi smitoring of the |
rooms? Uranium dust found its way into these rooms heeause there wus no special

. The data you have was trom the beginning of the production period, The
concentration in the production area must have been higher. This casts doubt oa the
sampling, and the same for the urinalysis.

Cindy Bloom:

We made assumptions regar

g the levels of detec!

Comment:

furnace in question was nota chip burner, it was a “Ing furnace.

Closing Comments by the Director of the Western Massachusetts Center for Occupational
Safety and Health:



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

Sama wc semen t a

and had no protection from the radiation. They were not told until afer the war that they
were part of the Manhattan Project. Most firsi-hand accounts have been from workers who
are already deceased.

Cindy Bloows:
This makes them eligible as an AWE site. The information goes in the system. it wor

to find out what they made and what type of work they did.

id help

Comment:
It was similar to later work. Trainloads of uranium rods were brought in to be finished and
shipped out.

Question:

Have WW Il documents and contracts been examined?

Ansver:

They are stil looking for some of those.

Question:

What about Brookhaven? Have you ider

Cindy Bloom:

y rere is an active, o1

tified the boxes

g data capture effort.

Comment:

The first reactor went into use in 1948. so varlier work is unlikely,
Cindy Blom:
Daring WW Il they used the calutron for uranium enrich:
went to gaseous diffusion prants.

en. Howasn't ent. so they

Question:
How w
Cindy Bloom:
Specific da

vaffeet the Site Profile ifwe can decument

he most helphl.
Question:

The Manhattan Project period is memorable. but difficult to document
Cindy Bloom:

The Site Profile is modified. but not definitive. We would appreeiz

@ input.

Comment:
ne Manhattan Proje ran out Of NY u 1948. Where was ihe co
‘ho were the vendors and suppliers for the Manhatian Project?

a
¢
cs



Centers for Dass
National Insitute for Go

OMB Number: 0920-0639

B.1 Name of Surviver:

Mr/Mrs/Ms. First Name

B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
8.3 Address of Survivor:

Street

City State

8.4 Telephone Nurnber of Survivor:

5.5 Email Address of Survivor:

8.6 Relationship to Employee: 2 Spouse Q Son/Daughter
Q Grandparent O) Grandchild

QO Parent

U.S. Gepartment of Health and Human Services |
Control and Pren

son |

Go to Part CG.

Employee information — Complete Section C.
C1 Name of Employee:

Middle Initial Last Name

es _
{ MiiMrs./Ms First Name

G2 Former Name of Employee ic.g., ma

Me is FirstName

C.3 Social Security Number of Employee: ee

C4 Address of Employee (if ving):

Street ~ ” Apia

tiy “State — Zip Code ~~ ~
€.5 Telephone Number of Employee: Low. nee ee
©.6 Email Address of Employee: a ee
C7 &mployment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known): on ee
C.7b Dales of Employment: Start Loe End ee
C7c Employer Nam: ane ee oe
C.7a Work Site Location a a
C.7e Supervisors Name: -

Sign Part G of the original petition.

LW

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: .

|



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|

j uoder the Energy Employees Occupalionat Conters for Disease Control and Prevention |
i hiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health H

OMB Number. 0920-0639 Expires 05/31/2007
Appendix — Petitioner 3

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 3.

Ths appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 3, or his or her representative, should compiete the

paris applicable to him or her,
Refer to the General insiructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A, B, or C

riot

2ace io provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the compieted continuation page(s) to Form B.

ii vou need mort
the form and attac

Except for signatures. please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

@ An Energy Employee (current or former}. Start at C

Start at 8
Start atA

ff you are: | A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee),

U) A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee),

A. Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

to AS)

Oo
co)

Ai Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A 2) Ob No

A2 Organization information:

Name of Organization

AS Name of Petition Representative:

Mi/MrsiMs, First Name

AA Address:

P.O Box

city

A5 Telephone Number: ¢_ . wee
A§ Email Address: ea ee ee
A? 2 Check the box at left to indicate you have attach:

patition by the survivors} or employe:
on for this purpose is provided.

: Ifyou are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee. go to Part C. H

ame or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:





U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Controt and Prevention
National institute for Occupational Safety and Heaitr ;

‘OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 5 of 7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition
under the Energy Employees Occupational
j finess Compensation Act

i Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B&
Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F.

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry

Fi4 We have atiached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were net monitored, either through personal monitoring oF through area
monitoring.

{Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

F2 Qt We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit thal indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding moni SOUICS, SOUsoE Lert, oF process
from the site where the employees worked.

2 the back cf the petition form.)

(Attach documents and/or affidayi

Describe as completely as possibie, to the extent it might be unctear, pow th
documentation and/or affidavii(s} indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally. or destroyed,

Hy Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petiuoner: -



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

indy Bloom:
Work didn’t start until May. We can’t find decumen
used dioassay data to pinpoint it to ume, Fro
employees gave samples for urinalysis.

tion of when the fire occurred. but we
of May until Tune 11, 1948. sev

Question:
Did someone from inside the plant put out the
department.

Cindy Bloom:
Station No. 5 responded to a fire there, but records disappear ed when they
Something did happen in April. but that wasn't the onls time they responded to
Chapman Valve. We are trying to get printed records from the capt ains. We know there wer
meticulous records at the time.

Mark Roifes:
Could the firefighter give a deposition?

> documentation ai the

@
Ey

Response:
We havea”

Comment:

Cindy Bloom:

In 1948,

jots of water to > put it out



Chapman Valve Families for Justice
co Western MassCOSTL G4) Page Bak Ste 104 Springfield, ALA 01104
C4138) THL-O760 (LE) TELS Cand

non-prof
k you for your



Employ

behind the NIOSH Chapman Vahe Site Profil 3
is that ink aternal radiation dose can be reconstrected wuh @ very limited amount of bioas
rative, and was collected without any understanding of the
he Site Profile does not asess exposure 8 fron

a3

ants for the APO's ec

J49-Apri 19

my onty Biree dates



SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT
CLASS PETITION
FOR
CHAPMAN VALVE
INDIAN ORCHARD, MASSACHUSETTS

Chapman Valve Man uring Company

(later known as Crane Comp:

tof the city of Springfield. Massachusetts

vain of Ce Chief Electrici

Milling

F Inspector

ector

Master Mechanic
[cat Treater Foreman
Steamfiter

chine Repairer



RAL NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Secce MI Project Meeting
ns .
On Chapman Valve Site Profile
Comment:

The EPA found a hot spot in the soil next to one of the windows of Building 23. That's how
we know the incinerator was vented out the window.

Comment:
The paperwork was shipped io Houston, Texas, then Carol Stream, then California, when our
pension funds were moved by Crane Company.

Bill Murray:
AEC records may not be with the pension plan records, some of the information would be
classified.

Comments:
Claimants have difficulty getting verification through Social Security.
The information was also put on microfiche, The Crane Company has been less forthcoming
as more people call for sixty year old information.

Question:
is the fimited data you have for Chapman Valve consistent with other sites doing th
type of work, especially the lathing (burst uranium in the air)?

Cindy Bloom:
We would have to look at Co-Worker Data for Y-12. {tis consistent with other sites so far
There must have been some machining. The numbers are fairly high, Based on that. same
organs will be compensable. Over estimated exposure times, it is typically te lungs and skin
that are most affected.

Comment:

Please look at other lathing operations -- it would help for basis of comparison.
Cindy Bloom:

There is not much information available for comparison.

Comment:
The Internal Dose information is sparse, only relying on one set of samples. The other avo
were the limits of detection.
Cindy Bloom:
‘That means the limits were low. In 1948, data was collected to document what was going on
inthe workplace. There were no compliance issues.

Comment:
We rived a better

ple of the representative workforce.



RAT NIOSH Dose Reconstruction

aes Uy Project Meeting
ead .
On Chapman Valve Site Profile
— ecnnancactom anon
Bill Murray:

y machine in the Oak Ridge Operations vault. It’s
ion issues — a Q clearance is required.

We found a purchase order for the x ra
difficull to get information out due to ¢!

cal

1

| Comment:

| There are about 14 people in the Chapman Vaive group who will help out if they can.
There is a lot of anger in the community. Of: approximately 250 claims, 170 have been

| denied.

| Cindy Bloom:

| NIOSH has seen less than 100 claims, Those must have been denied at the Department of

j Labor, perhaps based on the type of disease, or length of employment.

Question:
Can you describe the limitations of data in the Site Profile? What is the basis for the dose
reconstructions if you omit those involved in the fire? How is the data av eraged?

Cindy Bloom:
There is a procedure on bioassay data on groups of peaple ~ we use the co-workers at
Chapinan Valve.

Question:

You only have data from one date. What about th
Cindy Bloom:

June to September was the mosi active production period,

aduction activity?

Question:
Where was the uranium from the gri
indy Bloom:
Monthly reports state that the ure

id lathe operations sent?

ium Was used in the Brookhaven reactor,

Comments:
There wa:

lot of uranium from the furnace going up the s

We have 2 memo discussing rofling operations.

The Site Profile could do more justice ta each of the processes. If they were machining
uranium on the lathe, there would have been heat and fire, Jow do you account for only one
set of data with the above sources and factors?

Question:

chines are probably still around. Would samples be useful if they can be obtained?

'y are in somebody's gara

Answer:

The samples must be taken by certified lah personnel.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition
under the Energy Employees Occupational
ifiness Compensation Act

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Contre! and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

m
an

PMAN VALVE

&.4 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: = CE

E2 Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:
___ INDIAN ORCHARD, MASSACHUSETTS a 7

£.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. in addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class: SEE

E4 Employment Dates relevant to this petition:
Stat —_ —_ End ——_
Start End = ~ —
Start . End

ts the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: xl Yes Q No
if yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages

as necessary):

Sf E ATTACHED

Go to Part F.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Attachment 3



Ante eo wnesiow

cane

ot

node

eo

3

332



wee ne men eat Ona lth ROMER tI waned pec ted de Le

ates

FAA vont im ntteemtnnes sedmen nbernmeorsnnine BOL TS taal

4
Pay
9
te 3
Oo a d
oes
é a
g fa a
3 1 Be .
oy a 1
2 re '
3 a 5
oo 2 .
FA >
a) %
ny by ,
3 Set a
Burd ”
oe “4
b b>
2
$ a ~ {
g 3 !
t a A
Mo} a
Pere 3
Pash o é
BB ow u
how o i
S het 8
8
: Beare "3
| vy ao 4 i
oO ae 3g :
! i op
S332 ;
ho gd & rt
tet uo R 1d
at
et Dy Ot Uy be
‘ oo ©
VPS ed A ry
a “og a
ak i
49 a Ba i
oa i p |
ofA g
3 et
oh. +6
8 fog 2 i
cy se aff a
oo st 3 h i
uh a
Lan 8 {
Ged ot i !
to
| \
‘ : }
‘ : i
‘ Hf
{ . +
i L
: }



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
Gn Chapman Valve Site Profile

Question:
A lot of government work was done there. Rumors have i
for World War L. Where did you look for records?
Cindy Bloom:
everal different groups looked for records at Oak Ridge and Brookhaven. Some documents
aper and iniernet
xpertise - Chapman Valve ma

ai they worked on the bombs

nn

(classified. We did news
vorking in their

2
a
e

were ¥

Question:
Before fir
what happened wo them?

dy Bloom:

Early records probably went to the Man

clean up im 1983-84, there were files and

pecr District.

hatian Engi

Comment:
Thave an affidavit from 1987. Records were kept in the second floor offices, bui
another building. [ believe they have been destroyed.

moved to

Question:
How does NIOSH determine » hat qualifies worke:

Cindy Bloom:
People with skin vancer
personal inter

ification.

Question:

ia ve

docurn

posi-operannn. What informenton de you use to determing exposure durin

ce We have HOw

Cindy Bloom:

Intemual dose data was scant.



| Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services?
j bhder the Energy Employees Ociypation Centers for Disease Contra! and Prevention |
| tisess Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational and Health ;
OMB Number: 0920-0638 Expires: 05/31/2007
Appendix — Petitioner 2

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Use of this form and disclesure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this formn or disclose
this number will not resuit in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 2.

native, should complete the

sed as needed. Petitioner 2, or his or her repre

This appenchx form is to be
paris applicable to him or her

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A, B, or C.

if vou need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
ihe form and attach the completed continuation page(s} to Form &.

Except for signatures, please PRINT ail information clearly and neatly on the form

An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C
if you are:| @ A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B
0 A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), Start at A

A Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or

Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

Ad Are you a contact person for an organization? 0 Yes (Go to A.2) OQ No (Go te A3)

42 Organization information:

Name of Organization

nm of Contact Person

Ag Name of Petition Representative:

MrJMrs iMs "First Nz

Ad Address:

city

Telephone Number: «_

AS

A& Email Address: ee ee ee oe ene

(1 Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this f
petition by the survivor(s} or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of thi

{ form for tus purpose is provided.

m weitten authorization to
ization

form. An aut

lf you are representing a Surviver, go to Part 8; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

urity Number of First Petitioner _ —



lier a ducumented

e date of the fire is ur

Pexposurets) ure unknown,

records and newsp japan eli

ma credible dose based an Side
GF oXposure.

Phe Site Profile indicates that only natural uranium (0.7% U2

Valve. It appears that, in addition to mechiuiny natural uramum, low ©

prestat ORNL found 2 16% enti iched uraiun ina apman Site soll survey done {

hed uranium was you sails under the exhaust

od at Chapman
iched uranium wits
at

235) wa

t ony bie

nea. clea up. The enrie

chip incinerator burner.

hed

living enriche

Kt MOSH tid nous
thts source tern wiforma
NIOSH hes! ‘!

* sracdotu mforms:
fon requests that NIOSH

i eurehed
ehi curiehey

nestigate \

rio tt
mig the

have bro

eg ull arama chy

ha Fi

tuan t suppl

ye tne EL

Pare

evides what dats Wil ae

BEER See They



Attachment |



U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Diszase Cantral and Prever
National institute for Occupational Safety and

OMB Nunt

Special Exposure Cohort P
under the Energy Empioyees Occupational
Viness Compensation Act

|
1

er: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 2 of 7

Speciat Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

81 Name of Survivor:

Mc/MrsiNS) First Name

B.2 Social S8Eurity Number of Survivor: _ _. _

8.3 Address of Survivor:

Street
City —_ State :
8.4 Telephone Number of Surviver:  ; ne
65 Email Address of Survivor: —
8.5 Relationship te Employee: O Spouse pany sorlQauaiter) O Parent
QO Grandparent Q Grandchi

| Go to Part C.
Complete Section C UNLESS you are a labor organization.

{es Employee Informatio:
Ct Name of Emplovee:

a

itars. Js. First Name

C2
C3 Social Security Number of Emaleyee: _ cee nmin
C4 Address of Employee (if living):

cs Telephone Number of Employee: Lon _ _

Email Address of Employee: —

Employment Information Related to Petition:
Employee Number (if known): pegak.

Oaies of Employment Start

C.?e SupervisorsName. _ a ee

Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Attachment 5



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Valve Site Profile

oe

can conven

The section of the Site Profile on occupational external dosimetry was based on data recorded
from the monitoring program using film badges which measured beta and gamma radiation. Up
to 30 workers were monitored per week. The badges were exchanged weekly, but badges were
worn only in the restricted area. Although the reporting limit was 30 milirads, often the data is
less than 50, so NIOSH will assign the dose for each reporting period.

Cindy Bloom:
They sent 50 badges at a lime for analysis. A worker used one badge all week, and then it
was sent to be analyzed. There is also information on the hours workers were in the control
area and the reported results of the exposure.

Mr. Murray continued: NIOSH takes into consideration the occupational medical dose, assuming
that employees received a chest x ray during their pre-employment physicals and one annual
chest x ray thereafter. This additional exposure is added so that NIOSH considers all possible
sources when calculating the dase reconstruction.

In concluding his presentation, Mr. Murray emphasized the importance of developing a viable
Technical Basis Document which could be changed based on workers’ input. He asked that all
commenis on ihe Chapman Valve Profile should be sent directly to NIOSH.

Discussion Session

Comment:
None of the workers had protection. They had the worl

3 wash the machines.

Chuly Bloom:
They collected all
possible.

2 material they could the goal was to keep as much uranium as

Comment:

‘The map of Building 32 hes a

[he report idues were burned and shipped oif s
uranium chip burner.
che

This process was used 10

Comment:

inerator. The incinerator was v
burldi ng Where they found 2 .16%

There is no mformation on monitoring around the in
‘as in the same part of
sched wr anium. [s that consistent with [94x- 49

Comment:
Ina July 1992 ORNL document, there was an activity leve! und a citation.



Hl
‘
i
{
{

my

| Special Exposure Cohort Petition
{ under the Energy Employees Oacupational
hiness Compensation Act

i Speciat Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Centers for Disease Coatro!
onat Safety and Healt

Expires, 95/31/2007

National institute for Occupat
OMB Number. 0920-0629

evention| q

Page 1 of?

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the deniat of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet}:
Except jor signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A ~ G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. if there 1s more

than one pettioner, then each petitioner should compiete those sections of parts A ~ C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form ate provided at the end of the form for this pur-

pose. A maximum cf three petitioners is allowed.

if you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) te Form 8.

if you have questions about the use of this form, please call the fellowing NIOSH toll-free phone numb
request to Speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petit
1-800-356-4674.

UA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3

I you Q An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page?
are: &@ A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page 2
© A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StarlatA on Page?

Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s} to petition on behalf of actass.

Ate you a contact person for an organization? J Yes {Go to A.2}

A2 Organization information:

Position of Coniacl Person : ~ ° ~
AD Name of Petition Representative:

First Name

AG

City aR
Ad Telephone Number: 2 oy a
AS Email Address: a
AT Check the box al left to indicate you have attactied lo the back of this form written authorization to

petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts & or C of this form. An authorization

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C. |

Name or Sociai Security Number of First Petitioner:



Attachment 4



NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
Project Meeting
On Chapman Vaive Site Profile

——

Question:
Are you using an average instead of the upper 90% like Bethlehem Steel?

Cindy Bloom:
We had bioassay information from people in the fire - others were not as high. They weren't
hased on time-weighted concentrations. The air sampling data taken in May was not useful.
We looked at bioassay and air concentration data to see if it would resolve,

Comment:
We'll do our best for documentation, but we have io deal with the background. Workers
remember changing departments and circulating. hh’s reasonable to believe that the majority
were exposed in some way.

Cindy Bloom:
We made that assumption - everyone either gets individual dosimetry or surrogate data, even
though the actual data is probably actually lower.

Comment:
Other potential sources of radiation have not been considered. There was x ray photography
ofa lead casket holding samples of 100 and 200 radium pills exposed in the center of a unit
ona ttipod. There was film around the outside. These were taken to check integrity of the
valves that were being produced for the U.S. Navy.
The ovo rooms that were used for this purpose were at the end of the warehou!
d plswood walls with a 3-foot high steel lining. We were not told th
foot high ceiling and bounced around.
The exposed film was sent to the hospital. ‘This was in 1943-44, The Navy compiled the x
rays. Uhere were 12-ineh conerete walls lined with steel, There was a control room {lo
preveit exposure}. We didn’t use film badges.or TLD’s because of the control roo.

he rooms

hit the

a

Comment:
They used a 1,000 kilovolt x ray unit. The badge results always came back din the
195s and 1960s), The boss said there were high radiation levels because it was from un
open source, They kept the results in a log.

Question:

Tlow were

nents taken eare of that were worn in ihe room?
Cindy Bloom:

They were probably laundered — dust comes off.
Comment:

Indian Orchard had a radioactive laundry business

Comment:

There is some mystery regarding reports

¥ reg: anjum processing during World War I.
Workers during the period from 1942 to 1945

had no idea what was the nature of their work



Helper-. Januor

Forema:

iy
i

sector IK Ferguson Co

Inspectar 4

bagineet {

rowers, Oifice oF US

hese sampics 6

As NIOSH concede: ‘ t oto William

wi about wi

sentanise Richa

onal to the

@ coworker mode! far workers

operat

1 chin burnt and a sets

rate dl

rethier is fuatstble (0 estate dk

NASSIOy RAMIDECN SOP cu

Awackooea A

the Ser



ye surviving workers. There was no mi-plant air monitor
ssas not addressed by NIOS

operation is unknown to
or dose information on the cracking fuenace. This

profile and nu data apparently exists.

An AEC memo mentions the presence of urancund
cory if Us took place a ul

ing” work at Chapman Valve

éAvachinent 3} There is ao documentation
was taken on 524-48.
tio

ay samples. [
iuer im the luehroo wm, and other soneprods

The

showed elevated leveis oF u

oke in the fachity and the absence of

shout overall anu

atrols. NIOSH did not

question

COMANUNAHOR CoH

Summary

here is ins
> fur mter
repress auve of the potential © exposures. Productios
OSUTES, There ss only | day of arm
Since produc i
diane}

ion protection ©

Bas

F sa reasonable Hkelthood the elass of

ofa functional contansination contro! program, there

ny have ben endangered front exposure to radiation at Chapman Valve,

workers

List of Attachments

Tyran

ian

ys from Anstice

D2 memo wo Welam Pow

tecation af the chip Stem

sonired hy ORNL tha: shov

nm of Pebrua!